F. Sidebottom Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Doesn't anyone ever consider blaming those people that borrowed money who couldn't afford to pay it back, and subsequently didn't pay it back (while the rest of us honour our debts), for the mess we are in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Doesn't anyone ever consider blaming those people that borrowed money who couldn't afford to pay it back, and subsequently didn't pay it back (while the rest of us honour our debts), for the mess we are in? No,No surely they're the victims in all this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Doesn't anyone ever consider blaming those people that borrowed money who couldn't afford to pay it back, and subsequently didn't pay it back (while the rest of us honour our debts), for the mess we are in? Pay it back? How dare you suggest people be responsible for themselves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Do you have any better sources than the biased "Daycare Trust" who are just scarermongering. This BBC link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12301690 clearly states that the "closure" is based on operator's fears and thoughts and not based on anything other than that. The money is still being provided by the government to councils. If the councils choose not to spend the money given to them on Surestart that's not the government's problem. Not sure if you have put the right link up, because your article says: "But the level of this grant is 11% lower than the equivalent funding for the previous year. And the protection around children's centre funding has been removed in a shake-up of budgets" The money is not still available, the inevitable consequence of this is: "Of those who had an indication of what their budgets for 2011-12 would be, 86% said they were expecting reductions. The charities said if the findings of the survey were replicated across all centres in England, it would lead to about 250 closures and 2,000 providing a reduced service." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Doesn't anyone ever consider blaming those people that borrowed money who couldn't afford to pay it back, and subsequently didn't pay it back (while the rest of us honour our debts), for the mess we are in? They are a minor factor. There is an explanation of all the factors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis Primary responsibility rests with the Banks, Mortgage lenders and with Governments for repealing the Keynesian protections put in place after the Wall street crash to protect from moral hazard in banking. Pay it back? How dare you suggest people be responsible for themselves! I suspect they have lost their homes.. they have more than been held to account. Something that cannot be said so readily of the banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 They are a minor factor. There is an explanation of all the factors here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis Primary responsibility rests with the Banks, Mortgage lenders and with Governments for repealing the Keynesian protections put in place after the Wall street crash to protect from moral hazard in banking. I suspect they have lost their homes.. they have more than been held to account. Something that cannot be said so readily of the banks. Ahhh wikipedia. the source of knowledge from people such as some of the contributors on SF - deluded and prejudiced. Although having read the article I stand by what I said before. The cause of this crisis is that people who weren't in a position to borrow extensively did indeed borrow, and couldn't pay it back. And they haven't lost their homes. They couldn't afford those homes in the first place, so didn't deserve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Not sure if you have put the right link up, because your article says: "But the level of this grant is 11% lower than the equivalent funding for the previous year. And the protection around children's centre funding has been removed in a shake-up of budgets" The money is not still available, the inevitable consequence of this is: "Of those who had an indication of what their budgets for 2011-12 would be, 86% said they were expecting reductions. The charities said if the findings of the survey were replicated across all centres in England, it would lead to about 250 closures and 2,000 providing a reduced service." Nope, its the right link. I was trying to prove a point that these claims are made by ignorant people based on their fears and rehashed by the media and people like you to make them look like facts. Here's another typical claim: It comes after the BBC News website reported claims that at least one children's centre was likely to close in every local authority area in England. Who made these claims? Why did BBC News report this? Are there any facts other than scaremongering, just like you and Wednesday1 peddle? (And incidentally go quiet when presented with the facts and hide for a week or two until the thread drops down the lists and you start another one?) The key bits in that link are: Children's minister Sarah Teather said there was enough money available to maintain existing children's centres She added that the new Early Intervention Grant gave local authorities the freedom to make the best decisions for the families in their areas. The government shouldn't have to force councils to spend only Surestart money on Surestart services. If they're not responsible enough to manage their budget and feel the need to take money from Surestart for other things that's not the government's problem. Or would you prefer all local councils to have any autonomy taken away from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
websters gue Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 The cause of this crisis is that people who weren't in a position to borrow extensively did indeed borrow, and couldn't pay it back. Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? I wouldn't lend money to someone who would have difficulty paying me back so why did the banks do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F. Sidebottom Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? I wouldn't lend money to someone who would have difficulty paying me back so why did the banks do it? The banks generally didn't do the lending directly to the bad payers. However, as the wiki report says, a lot of the lending issue is related to fraud. The right questions are answered, but the forms filled in fraudulently. But even then, it's down to people who knew they couldn't/wouldn't be able to pay it back. Why are they not responsible for their actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowman Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 "Why did the banks lend money to people who had poor credit ratings? " Banks enjoyed a lucrative get out clause - securitization - and could simply sell on the debt to any investor prepared to take on the risk. Credit rating agencies erroneously downplayed this risk encouraging more subprime selling, more selling on and with everybody getting a transaction fee the cash rolled in, until it didn't. They we bailed them out to start the whole jolly merry go round again Hoorah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.